It’s exceedingly complicated and inefficient, especially given the limited judicial resources there are, to track down child support payments and ensure that they’re used for the child’s benefit as opposed to strictly the custodial spouse (and I say strictly because there’s the “rising tide lifts all boats” part of having child support money be used by the parent if it’s not directly spent on the child)
It’s not some back door dishonesty. It’s just really taxing to control it.
You’re missing the fact that it’s the adults themselves running to court looking for a court to settle a dispute (namely, the divorce). In for a penny, in for a pound.
That’s probably where I would challenge it, were I to challenge it. I honestly haven’t thought about it much, though.
The main reason I would pick that is to annoy the bejeezus out of textualists, though. 
That doesn’t work, though, as a person can file for divorce on their own, bringing the other person into the court system without their consent. It isn’t an arbitration, it’s a court proceeding in which one is entitled to due process and equal protection.
I’m not getting your joke. Do textualists insist that “due process” can mean “anything the state wants to do”? I don’t think capriciousness counts under a textualist ruling, and this strikes me as exceedingly capricious.
What due process is being violated? They’re being given notice and opportunity to be heard as to why they shouldn’t be made to pay for their kids’ college.
And where is the (dis)equal protection?
As an answer to Rumor_Watkins as well, it would be the concept of substantive due process, which makes textualists wet their panties, which would be used for such a challenge.
I don’t think it would necessarily work, though.
There isn’t an EP problem here, RW, but I was saying that it is a court proceeding not an arbitration, so it requires EP & DP.
Apparently it was EP grounds that the PA supreme court used to strike down the post-minority support rules
Curtis v. Kline, 666 A. 2d 265 ¶
Interesting - let me rephrase a little. I don’t see an EP problem here, and wouldn’t challenge it under that. I don’t necessarily see a DP problem here either, but if John Mace wanted to retain me, I’d probably challenge it under that, at least until his money ran out.
Don’t get your hopes up, pal. 
But if that’s the standard, alimony and support would also be unconstitutional, correct? Since the courts order one adult to pay support to another adult, based on the former spousal relationship.
And what about tort law, where one party has injured another adult party and is required to pay major sums in compensation, to support the injured party?
As Northern Piper has pointed out, there are many, many instances where an adult can lay claim to another person’s assets – tortious liability, contractual debts, damages for breach of contract, etc, etc. Most of these are founded on relationships far less intimate and far more transient than either marriage or parenthood.
It’s a no-brainer that in marrying someone you accept obligations which are more than likely to involve your assets and income. And, as we know, these obligations do not necessarily disappear when the marriage terminates.
Pretty much the same is true of begetting a child. And there is nothing written in the heavens which says that your obligations to your child terminate the day he or she attains age 18, or age 21, or any other age. While such a rule would be attractively simple, real life is not so straightforward. Your obligations to your child depend on your circumstances, and your child’s, and the circumstances of other relevant persons.
By and large, the courts only get involved in identifying and enforcing these obligations when relationships break down. That’s because experience tells us that this is when they need to get involved. As long as relationships are functional, people can generally work out and respect their own obligations better than a judge can. (And – guess what? – this is true of contractual obligations too.)
You don’t want to have obligations to your children? Easy-peasy; don’t beget any. But once you take that step, then you have obligations towards your children, and you don’t always get to determine what they are unilaterally.
Are you saying that if your 35 year-old son needs money for, e.g. surgery, he can take you to court to pay for it? Or, can the state force you to pay for his medical expenses?
But there is an age limit. No state says you have to support your adult child indefinitely. Every state draws the line somewhere. I’m just surprised it’s not 18 or 21.
Most states do draw the line at 18 or 21. Here is a comprehensive chart outlining the differences in states laws.
Not necessarily, no. I’m saying that there’s no bright line at age 18 or 21 after which you have no material responsibilities to your children, and certainly nothing in the US Constitution which would have that effect. But it doesn’t follow that you are indefinitely responsible without limit of amount or duration for all your children’s needs.
The extent of your (legal) responsibilities, and the mechanisms for enforcing them, are matters for the legislature, in which the legislature would do well to reflect community standards. As matters stand, most states take a largely hands-off approach, with formal legal intervention only when family relationships publicly break down, and imposing financial obligations to children only when, broadly speaking, it is reasonable for children still to regard themselves as financially dependent - e.g. they’re still in full-time study, at an age when it is common and reasonable still to be in full-time study, they are disabled, etc.
It’s not that cut and dried. Many states also recognize that parents have an obligation to provide support to adult children with disabilties, both mental and physical. See this companion chart.
A Bill of Attainder is a law passed declaring that a particular person is guilty of a particular offence. It originated in England, when the King would simply have Parliament enact an Attainder, bypassing all that messy courts business. Typically the offence stated in the Bill was treason, leading to the execution of the person named in it.
An ex post facto law is a criminal law which retroactively creates a criminal offence, criminalising activity which was lawful when it occurred.
Neither of those situations is occurring in the case of a statute setting out a parent’s obligation to provide support for a young adult child in education. The parent is not being found guilty of any offence, and if the law was already on the books prior to the application for support being brought to the court, then there is no retrospective effect.
I imagine part of the college requirements are related to federal financial aid policies. Until you reach a certain age (I think it’s 24), you need to provide your parents tax returns when applying for financial aid. You’ll then be told your “expected family contribution.” If your parents tell you to piss up a rope (as is their legal right), well, no college for you before 24.
I’ve seen this bite people pretty bad. My old roommate did a work study in the financial aid office and used to tell me horror stories. The truth is, the most common scenario was divorced fathers not contributing what the gov’t said was their share-- or outright refusing even the tax returns (in which case you can get no financial aid of any kind, at all). It was pretty rare for someone’s married parents to refuse.
I’m not surprised it worked itself into divorce law.